1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD JOHN SINCLAIR, Case No.: 23-cv-648-MMA (MSB) Booking #22728816, 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO Plaintiff, 13 DISMISS vs. 14 [Doc. No. 5] SAN DIEGO SHERIFF MARTINEZ; 15 CAPTAIN BIBEL, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 I.PROCEDURAL HISTORY 20 On April 7, 2023, Ronald John Sinclair (“Plaintiff”), while detained at the San Diego 21 Central Jail (“SDCJ”) in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights 22 Complaint (“Compl.”) pursuant to

. See Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff did not 23 pay the fee required by

(a) when he filed his Complaint; instead, he filed 24 a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to

(a). See 25 Doc. No. 2. 26 On April 18, 2023, the Court conducted the required sua sponte screening and 27 dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 28 granted pursuant to

(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). See Doc. No. 3. Plaintiff 1 was also granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and he was informed that he would 2 be required to pay the entire $350 filing fee by garnishing his inmate trust account 3 pursuant to the installment payment provisions set forth in

(b)(1). 4 Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended pleading but instead he has filed a 5 request to dismiss this matter and has further requested that no further funds be garnished 6 from his account. 7 II. MOTION TO DISMISS 8 Plaintiff has submitted a request to the Court stating, “please dismiss my complaint 9 in this matter” and “please do not have them take money from my trust account [and] 10 cancel my motion [to] proceed in forma pauperis.” Doc. No. 5. 11 Plaintiff has “an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his action prior to” 12 defendants being served, filing an answer or seeking summary judgment, and “[t]he filing 13 of a notice of voluntary dismissal with the court automatically terminates the action as to 14 the defendants who are the subjects of the notice. Such a dismissal leaves the parties as 15 though no action had been brought.” American Soccer Co., Inc. v. Score First 16 Enterprises,

(9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111

(9th Cir. 1997). The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to 18 Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). 19 However, the Court cannot stop the garnishment of Plaintiff’s trust account as he 20 requests. Regardless of whether the action is dismissed, Plaintiff remains obligated to 21 pay the filing fee. A prisoner granted leave to proceed IFP remains obligated to pay the 22 entire fee in “increments” or “installments,” Bruce v. Samuels,

, 84 (2016); 23 Williams v. Paramo,

(9th Cir. 2015), and regardless of whether their 24 action is ultimately dismissed. See

(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 25

(9th Cir. 2002). 26 III. CONCLUSION 27 For the reasons explained, t Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 5), liberally 28 construed as a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), is 1 ||}GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to dismiss this action and close the file. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: May 12, 2023 4 Miku MM Lille 5 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 oe